Jump to content

Talk:Judaism and Mormonism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateJudaism and Mormonism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
November 11, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 25, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 7, 2006Articles for deletionKept
Current status: Former featured article candidate

older comments[edit]

Article Created 7 Aug 2004. As of 16 Apr 2006, there have been 136 Contributers, 60 are IP addresses, 76 are registered Users
Total 7 Aug 2004 to 16 Apr 2006, 924 Edits
Stats from (VChapman 16 APR 2006)


The Mormon doctrine that Jesus is Jehovah (and not God the Father) has a special significance in relation to the Jews and their covenant with Yahweh (or Jesus?). Jonathan Tweet 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesus section needs some work; the info is basically fine, but the current text has quite a combative tone. In particular, the lead-in characterizes it as a fallacy that Jews think about Jesus at all. This is non-neutral and somewhat silly. It's true that Jesus does not have a central or large role in Judaism, and perhaps that was all that was meant. But of course Judaism has teachings about Jesus, as the article goes on to describe. I'm reworking it a bit now, feel free to comment on my changes. --Reuben 22:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"of course Judaism has teachings about Jesus"?! By all means, share them with us. FiveRings 00:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. There's a Wikipedia article on that subject: Jewish view of Jesus. See also Yeshu, who appears in the Talmud and has traditionally be understood by Jews and Christians as referring to Jesus. Maimonides wrote about him. There are books on the subject [1], articles [2], an FAQ [3], etc., just as there are Christian view of Mohammad or a Muslim view of Buddha. One simple example of a Jewish teaching about Jesus is that Jesus was not the Messiah. I would be happy with a different wording than my version, but I think your edit still comes across as somewhat combative. It's not necessary to repeat the qualification "if such a person even existed," when the very next sentence already makes it clear that many Jews do not believe this. Also, the comment about a "trinity, even of divine beings" does not reflect trinitarian Christian belief. See for example Trinity. --Reuben 00:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better, thanks. I'm changing "trinity of divine beings" to "trinity of divine persons," because a trinitarian Christian would not describe the trinity as consisting of three separate beings. For the same reason, "any deity but God" still isn't quite right, because trinitarian Christians don't believe that Jesus is an additional deity. I think there's probably a better way to put this, but I haven't thought of it yet... --Reuben 01:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just Jesus as an additional diety that's the issue though, it's also the duality between Father and Holy Spirit. Many xtians seem to believe that Jews believe in a trinity without Jesus. That unity thing should be re-emphasized. Perhaps a link to the sh'ma? FiveRings 01:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be good in the "nature of God" section, just before "Jesus." --Reuben 01:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Friendship" and mormons afforded special privilidges in Israel.[edit]

The following paragraph (now reverted) was added to the intro:

"Despite the great theological gaps that exist between the two peoples, since the beginning of modern Jewish history in Israel, close friendships have existed between Israeli leaders and Mormon leaders, and Israel has afforded the Mormon people many benefits in Israel that other denominations have been denied (i.e. the BYU Jerusalem Center)."

this memo from the jerusalem center for public affairs explains what actually happened: http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/mormon.htm

Mormons aren't considered differently from any other xtian denomination. FiveRings 01:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think an acceptable question to answer is there any evidence that other Christian groups been denied benefits granted the Mormon people? The article cited does not address the final point made that there is not difference. Currently, that can only be assumed an opinion and not a fact.
Who was the editor that made the claim and what evidence do they have for such a statement? Storm Rider (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The memo cited specifically references Israel's policy of freedom of religion, and the need to treat all xtian denominations equally: "The establishment of a Mormon presence on the proposed scale will present a challenge to other Christian groups to whom Israel will then be unable to deny equal access as their right. If the Mormons do build, some guarantee against missionizing will have to be made part of the charter agreement if constant battle is to be avoided (although such a guarantee would not necessarily deflect the opposition of groups opposing a substantial Christian presence in Jerusalem as a threat to Jewish survival)."
The editor wasn't named, just an IP address. FiveRings 05:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, even if true, that is original research by that IP unless there is a reference. --Trödel 15:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the structure was already built; it is the BYU Jerusalem Center. I don't see how its construction is a favor; I suspect the editor was being overly optimistic or just naieve. I know the LDS church and the Mormon people are highly favorable towards Israel and its people, but I am not aware of any mutual relationship beyond that. Storm Rider (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, many religions have centers near or in Jerusalem (I visited the Bahai temple when I was there). If you read the entire referenced memo, you'll note that one of the concerns was Jews *attacking* the Mormon construction. FiveRings 01:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing - Wikipedia not a reliable source[edit]

The AFD discussion currently underway contains the statement "I added a lot of the Jewish information, and it was taken from other Wikipedia articles and other disparate sources." This is a reminder that per our guideline on reliable sources, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The material sourced from Wikipedia articles should be resourced to reliable sources. GRBerry 02:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could have said "as I was taught in Hebrew school", but that's harder to cite. What is considered common knowledge in the jewish community isn't common knowledge at all in the mormon community, and isn't necessarily common knowledge (or thought of at all) in the general community. So at what point is a citation needed? (The sign on the wall at the Mikveh says "take off all makeup and jewelery". I suppose I could take a photo). FiveRings 03:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LDS Baptism[edit]

Would someone check into LDS baptism and confirmation. It is listed incorrectly here. Baptism is only for the the washing away of sins. Baptism does not make one a church member. Afterwards priesthood holders confirm the candidate as a member of the church and give them the Gift of the Holy Ghost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

There are two different baptisms of water. Baptism for remission of sins and baptism as an entrance into the kingdom of God (or the Church). In the church today, we rarely practice the first independent of the second. In the early days of the church, members were baptised when they joined the church, before going to the temple for the first time, before recieving the priesthood, before entering into a new plural marriage, etc. In fact, Oliver Cowdery and Brigham Young both were baptized at least six times each, if not more. Later prophets clarified that the ordinance of the sacrament was adequate for renewing the covenants of baptism and that baptism solely for the remission of sins was not essential after one had already been baptized as a church member. In otherwords, people only needed to be baptized once in their life unless they lost their church membership. Whenever we participate in a new ordinance, according to Wilford Woodruff, their former covenants associated with previous ordinacnes are renewed as if they were participating in the original ordinances for the first time. For example, when you go to the temple to be married, your baptismal coventant is renewed and you are again washed clean of your sins. Same when you partake of the lords supper.
Baptism is the introductory ordinance to church membership. While it is true that Baptism is for the remission of sins - ie to demonstrate that one has partook of the atonement (blood) unto the remission of sins, not merely for the washing away of sins (water) or the sanctification and justification required (spirit) to keep one clean. Baptism does make one a church member. That membership is "confirmed" at the time of confirmation or when a member is given the gift of the holy ghost. See for example: D&C 20: 37, 41, 68, 72-73 ("truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church"; "And to confirm those who are baptized into the church"; "The duty of the members after they are received by baptism.") also, Mosiah 25: 17-18 (Therefore, Alma did go forth into the water and did baptize them; yea, he did baptize them after the manner he did his brethren in the waters of Mormon; yea, and as many as he did baptize did belong to the church of God; and this because of their belief on the words of Alma.
Bottom line? Baptism by water is for church membership and to signify a remission of sins, which comes from accepting the atonement or "received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins," and precedes the baptism by fire (or spirit). Baptism signifies a remission of sins, not neccessarily "washes them away." Baptism is a symbol of the death, burial and ressurection of christ and that we are volunarily laying down and burying our old sin-filled life and lifting up a new life as a disciple of Christ. John the beloved gives an interesting discourse in 1 John 5 on these three baptisms (blood water and spirit). hope this helps. -Visorstuff 21:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Anyone else think this rather long article would work better as two separate ones? "Mormonism and Judaism" would be a comparative religion article (cf. Judaism and Christianity), currently all of section 7 and subsections, and "Mormon views of Judaism" (a similar idea to Judaism's view of Jesus) would include the current introduction and following sections up to 7. Kaisershatner 16:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An even better template is Relations between Catholicism and Judaism. I'm going to make the split if no-one comments. I'm going to solicit comments from major editors here and maybe the Mormonism project?  :) Kaisershatner 17:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the split. In any case the article could usefully be rewritten and significantly shortened. In particular, many of the sections read as simply a statement of Mormon belief, followed (or preceded) by a statement of Jewish belief. It would be better to combine sections into a running text that just touches on the most significant points, since there are already very thorough articles on the two religions individually. If you would like to reorganize the article, and a split would help you do it, it sounds fine to me. --Reuben 17:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree with the split. The point-by-point format was the end product of a lot of editing and arm wrestling - integrating the two texts never worked out (in my opinion, because the Mormon editors kept trying to find analogies that didn't exist). FiveRings 22:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tough decision, but I am mildly against at this point. There is no relationship from the perspective of Judaism. The relationship is one way, from Latter-day Saints to the House of Israel. I do agree that the article may be improved. Let's mull this over a bit longer. Storm Rider (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community of Christ, number of members??[edit]

Either 275,000 or 245,000 or (more probably) some other number. Not both numbers of members. (OK if they have 275,000 members they for certain have at least 245,000 members, but such sloppy logic won't be accepted by common encyclopedia readers!! :) Rursus 12:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a refernce for the current membership - I believe the current number comes from adherents.com. --Trödel 14:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Places of worship[edit]

Can we get a reference for "Latter-day Saint places of worship are frequently offered to Jews for their use in religious observances or celebrations."? Cdwiegand 22:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Mormons in Judaism[edit]

I had deleted the following text:

"and in Jewish observance, scripture and commentary (both ancient and modern) there is no belief in or mention of a connection to Mormons or Mormonism."

The reason I had deleted it is that it leads the reader to the question, does Jewish observance, scripture and commentary mention a connection to others and thus there is some additional significance the statement? Also, I assume we are talking about blood relation here. I suspect there would be something about Hagar's son Ishmael, but are there others that it defines specifically?

To me, I thought it was just too belt and suspenders, or redundant to say after first stating that Mormon claims of membership in the House of Israel are not acceptted. Maybe the fist phrase could be strengthened by saying, "Mormon beliefs with regard to their membership in the House of Israel are generally rejected both from a theological and cultural stand point by the Jewish community. Thoughts, FiveRings? --Storm Rider (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was that the edited (tightened) text gave the impression that this was just a jewish community (social) issue, and not a theological issue. There are in fact groups that have been recognized as belonging to the "lost tribes" by modern religious authorities (the Lemba, the Bene Israel). I don't mind the proposed strengthened phrase. FiveRings 05:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that stating "both from a theological and cultural" position is appropriate, but I still have reservations about the term cultural. What I think we are trying to say is that within Judaism there is no theology that contemplates any "kin" relationship between the Jewish people and the Latter-day Saint people. We are also trying to say that outside of theology there is no common discussion that would lead to any acceptance of this peculiar LDS concept; however, cultural works, but can you think of anything that would improve it? --Storm Rider (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current change is ok, I guess. Many Jews haven't even *heard* of Mormonism, or of the House of Israel claim, so I'm not sure you can even say 'generally rejected,' or talk about conflict. Maybe "From the Jewish standpoint, there is no theological or historical support for .... and Jews who are presented with Mormon claims of such typically reject this idea out of hand." (not original research, if you look at the Jews for Judaism site (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org). FiveRings 17:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the vast majority of the Jews simply are unaware of Mormons or have a limited knowledge of them and their claims and religion.
Upon hearing of LDS claims of being members of the House of Israel, I would assume they are more perplexed or even flummoxed. I don't really think the second sentence is truthful, is it? Are you aware of any problems this claim makes beteen interrelationships? In my interactions with my Jewish friends, most of them are Orthodox, I have never sensed anything more than interest as in "that is interesting". I never have thought it was an acceptance of fact, but an understanding of my beliefs. Membership in the House of Israel carries several layers of meanings for Jews than for LDS. For LDS it is limited to a realization of being in covenant with God. Jews, I think, feel the same thing, but it is greater than that. It is a nationalistic sense among others.
I shortened the "conflict" concept because it is more ambivalence than conflict except when it comes to those Jews who are familiar with the Baptism of Dead concept which appears to be a highly offensive practice to the Jewish people.
Five, is there something else you would add or say that is not already expressed? --Storm Rider (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the orthodox are mostly perplexed, but more secular jews (who are more likely to have been actively proselytized) can actually get pissed off. We do not have a positive racial memory with regard to attempted conversions (and the Mormon claim looks a whole lot like Jews for Jesus tactics). I was taught that "House of Israel" referred to descendants of the person (Israel/Jacob), so yes, it's "nationalistic" in the old Hebrew sense of "nation" (not the same as country).
How about: "From the Jewish standpoint, there is no theological or historical support for Mormon membership in the house of Israel. Several groups have made such a claim in both historic and modern times, and while some of these groups have in fact been recognized as "lost tribes" (for example, the Lemba people of Ethiopia), Mormons are not among them. While this dichotomy of belief can cause conflicts between individual Mormons and Jews, this rarely descends to active anti-Semitism or anti-Mormonism." (Some Jews would say that *any* attempt at conversion constitutes anti-semitism, but that's more depth than I think belongs here). FiveRings 20:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thta works with two changes: change claim to claims and reverse the anti-; what we are talking about is Jewish issues with LDS claims so it would be anti-Mormonism. I question even stating anti-Semitism; I don't believe I have ever heard of any LDS expressing anything similar to anti-Semitisism. It is a foreign concept and I would think almost impossible for a LDS to express; of course all things are possible. What about just leaving anti-Semitism off? Are you aware of any incidents (except for what I would consider a radical definition of anti-Semitism you described above)?
Have there been any writings regarding the restoration of the full 12 tribes of Israel? The concept of Jewish tribal affiliation appears to have lost its value except for maybe the Kohns. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, LDS believe that there are both literal descendants of Ephraim and those adopted into the tribe within the church. Though there is a belief that most LDS are of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, I am aware that there are believed members of all the tribes of Israel. I am not aware of LDS who seek to claim acceptance or acknowledgement by Jews or the nation of Israel for their membership in the House of Israel. However, I would have to say that it would not have surprised me if a Mormon had tried to gain recognition; that would have been a personal act and not on the part of the group or the church. This is unlike the other groups you mentioned who sought recognition, which did not come quickly or easily. I think LDS beliefs are quite independent of those of others. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term LDS Kohanim without explanation is a serious problem. Do the Mormons mean that if a Mormon who is a literal descendant of Aaron should preside over the church? Or that any Jewish Kohen can apply for the job? This concept also appears in Kohen Mdmcginn (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a travel agent from here in Utah that does tours of Israel about once a year. He advertizes that he is both LDS and Jewish, implying (with surrounding language) that one must be Jewish to be a tour guide in Israel. This would be an instance of what you are talking about, an individual who is in both groups. But, I have never heard of a group seeking recognition. — Val42 21:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WRT anti-Semitism, I have personally had the experience (and it appears to be common) of Mormons telling me they were MORE of the house of Israel than I was, because of the influx of new members to the Jewish community over the centuries. This is in fact a claim made by several anti-Semitic groups (that modern Jews aren't really Jewish). While that may not have been the general Mormon intent, it is the same tactic (similarly, the Mormon practice of claiming to be Jewish, and to follow Jewish rites and holidays, while worshiping Jesus, is also a JFJ tactic). So at what point do we stop looking at motivation and start looking at the offensiveness of the action? (By their fruits shall you know them, and all that). I did specify "individual" action in the proposed wording.
WRT to lost tribes, some seek recognition, and some just make the claim. Its a huge area of discussion. See the lost tribes page - Lost_tribes#Groups_claiming_descent_from_specific_Lost_Tribes (I see that this too needs work, since the last time I looked at it).
WRT the tour guide, I wonder if the Jewish community would consider him Jewish. I'm guessing it's an advertising ploy. FiveRings 17:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are okay with the wording, but I do think that individual experiences should be understood as such and they should not be construed as reflective of a group. Within Mormonism one thing is very clear, the covenant with the House of Israel is still intact and valid, i.e. we believe that the Jews are the covenant people; we just do not believe it is an exclusive covenant. In reality, we have to understand that people have differing degrees of understanding and there is not accounting for stupidity. I don't know how one gets to a point of claiming to be more of a Jew than a Jew!
It does appear that it is easy to paint the actions of others with the same brush (JFJ and Mormons for example); too broad a stroke is seldom a good idea.
WRT being Jewish - I think LDS make a distinction between the House of Israel and being Jewish. The House of Isreal is the assembly of all the Tribes while being Jewish is being a member of the tribe of Judah; it is a clear distinction. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you see, I'm not of the house of Judah. And I am most certainly a Jew. (If you're ok with the new wording I'll make the change). FiveRings 21:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfermented Wine[edit]

I've heard a handful of Mormons claim that "new wine" means "unfermented wine." Can any provide a citation for this? I've inserted a citation request into the article. Paulistano (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch; the scripture states "pure" wine, not new wine. All cross-references led to clarity that it was wine without clarification of being unfermented wine. Further, I find no commentary that one would use to produce an interpretation of new wine. I changed to reflect the actual language of the scripture. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological Contradiction[edit]

The chronology has:

  1. July 23, 1857 (Rosh Chodesh Av (the first day of the month of Av)) - June 29, 1857: U.S. President James Buchanan declares Utah in rebellion of the U.S. government. Buchanan appoints Alfred Cumming as governor of Utah. Cumming is to be escorted by a regiment of the U.S. army, initially led by Col. Edmund Alexander.
  2. July 18, 1857: Two Mormons, Porter Rockwell and Abraham Owen Smoot, learn of Buchanan's declaration in Kansas City while on a mail run. The same day, Col. Alexander and troops begin the journey to Utah.
  3. July 23, 1857: Rockwell and Smoot arrive in Salt Lake City and inform Brigham Young of the government's plans to overthrow Utah. 10 Years of predicted peace comes to an end.

So they heard about it and Alexander movesmfive days before it was declared and arrived the day it was declard? Avraham (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of Jesus / Weasel Words[edit]

The Nature of Jesus section appears to have some weasel words and looks like the section could be better sourced. Two sentences in particular come across ugly and possibly anti-Christian in nature: "Jews also do not believe that God has a physical body or gender; the idea that God might have physical, "begotten" children is therefore absurd to them." Absurd seems not only a harsh adjective but is somewhat vague and lacks quoted material. As well as "Jesus, if such a person ever existed, is not considered differently from any of the others." Why is this sentence added? The portion of the article is not discussing if Jesus existed or not and the question reads hostile toward Mormons and Christians. Ka'Jong (Ka'Talk)

Sorry you feel that way. Most Jews do not believe that Jesus ever existed. To simply say "Jesus is not considered differently.." would be to imply that he did. This is misleading at best, and offensive at least. If you can come up with a better word than "absurd" to imply categorical rejection, go for it. FiveRings (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I changed a sentence that said that Jews do not "recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah" because the word "recognize" implies that something is true, which is different from being believed. For example, I can recognize that I have two hands, but I can only believe that Zoroastrianism is the one true religion. Likewise, we could say that Mormons do not "recognize" the Pope as the final authority on all things Christian, but that would not be neutral.

Unless someone can explain how "recognize" can be WP:NPOV, I will be glad to change it back. CarolineWH (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your personal understanding of the word; however, it conflicts with the typcial understanding of English. The word recognize deals with the perception of the individual(s). It has nothing to do with reality. It may be helpful for you to review the definition. -StormRider 02:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Words have denotations, but also connotations. It may well be the case that "recognize" can be interpreted as you suggest, but it has a more common denotation, which leads to the unwanted connotation that what is being believed is true. You never did respond to my example of how Mormons fail to "recognize" the authority of the Pope. Would that phrase be acceptable to you?
As for your second paragraph, it appears to be in violation of WP:CIVIL, so I did you a favor by removing it. CarolineWH (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly in this context, I think recognize is perfectly acceptable. - Schrandit (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's such an interesting conclusion, but as you offer no basis, I can give it no weight. Remember, we do not vote, we form a consensus. Offering your reasoning is therefore a necessity if you expect to sway anyone. Otherwise, some uncharitable people might imagine that you're just agreeing for the sake of agreeing. CarolineWH (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found Storm Rider's case to be more persuasive. - Schrandit (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's very interesting. I would love to hear specifically what aspects you find more persuasive. Perhaps those might persuade me. CarolineWH (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion that you are not particularly persuadable. Stormrider's arguments are written above me as you can plainly see. I agree with his assessment of the language at use but I suspect you will not. - Schrandit (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poisoning the well is not persuasive. But if you do decide to change your mind and join us in building a consensus, your input will be welcome. CarolineWH (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you my imput; your argument is poor, Stormrider's is better, I agree with Stormrider. - Schrandit (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unexplained conclusion, so it carries little weight. CarolineWH (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline, you have not provided anything to support your position except provide your opinion. A dictionary provides the full range of definitions (both connotations and, more specifically, denotations) and the dictionary does not support your personal definition. You have created a definition that is not common. Of course it would be acceptable to say that LDS, Southern Baptists, Methodists, etc. do not recognize the pope as having any degree of apostolic authority. It is just as acceptable to say citizens of the USA do not recognize the authority of the prime minister of India, Great Britain, etc. The term "recognize" deals with perception of one for the other; it has nothing to do with reality. -StormRider 16:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm fine with "teaches". Accurate and neutral, just like it should be. CarolineWH (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One sided[edit]

This is an extremely one sided article, and makes it look as if Mormons and Jews agree with one another. Not true, since Mormons have enough of a beef with Christianity in general. BYU in Jerusalem caused a serious row in Israel when it was built.

Amongst other things which should be put on here would be...

  • The fact that Joseph Smith had a Jewish lodger for a while, who taught him Hebrew. Smith was interested in Hebrew and Judaism much of his life.
  • The Book of Mormon does not mention (m)any Jewish festivals at all, or much about kashrut.
  • The alleged use of Mormon ancestral research in Germany by the Nazis.
  • Baptism for the dead should be explored at length, for various reasons. Both Nazis and Holocaust victims have been baptised supposedly.
  • Parallels between Utah Zionism and Hebrew Zionism etc etc

--MacRusgail (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mac, it is always good to get another set of eyes looking at an article. In an attempt to contribute to your thoughts, I would say the following:
  1. I would be somewhat ambivalent about adding a section on the founder of the the Latter Day Saint movement and his personal interest. However, it does seem too narrow for the topic. What is of far more significance is the LDS doctrinal belief about the restoration of the House of Israel and related doctrines, which the article already covers.
  2. What do you see as the importance of the BofM not mentioning any festivals? Would that go better in the Book of Mormon or the Criticism of Mormonism articles?
  3. If you have references where Nazis used Mormon genealogical research is that a problem of Mormonism of an abuse of their records by a third party. Though it does seem to titillate, how does it apply to the topic of this article? It seems like it better applies to the article on Nazis.
  4. There is already a section on Baptism of the Dead in the article. In addition, there is a Baptism of the dead article with a section that specifically addresses this your topic.
  5. The parallels of different forms of Zionism seems like it could be interesting. However, you added British Israelitism to the See Also list. It seems a tenuous relationship to this topic. How does a belief in an ancient journey of several groups of Jewish peoples to the Western Hemisphere and British Israelitism relate?
I generally don't see any value in highly emotional topics like Nazism being introduced, though I recognize that others find it a juicy topic. You may want to consider a Criticism section where there is a focused discussion on how these two groups have nothing in common or possibly only a belief system, but nothing based in historical reality. Thoughts?--StormRider 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would dispute, for example, that the LDS has always been entirely philo-Semitic. Apart from being at loggerheads with other Christian churches, has it always had the best of relations with the Jewish community? I'm not referring to incidents between low ranking members of the church, but to church authorities. Could we really take this statement from Brigham Young as being philo-Semitic?
"I would rather undertake to convert five thousand Lamanites [native Americans], than to convert one of those poor miserable creatures whose fathers killed the Savior." (Journal of Discourses (1854) Volume 2, p 143)
"What do you see as the importance of the BofM not mentioning any festivals?" - this has to be taken at two levels. Firstly, I think it is notable that certain Jewish festivals do not appear (at least by name) in the Book of Mormon... BUT I think it would be wrong to say that the BofM contains no Jewish features. I think it must.
I added the link to British Israelitism for two reasons, firstly, there is a parallel with the lost Israelite tribes travelling to a remote location in the Book of Mormon, and secondly, within Mormonism, some white people are described as coming from Jewish tribes originally.
As regards Nazism, I know little or nothing about LDS activities at the time (other than the large number of LDS American troops), but the Baptism for the Dead business needs to be discussed at greater length. But yes, I agree, anything to do with Nazism does have a tendency to bring out controversy.
Joseph Smith took an interest in Hebrew from a very early age, and Nauvoo, for example takes its name directly from Hebrew. This is an unusual example of a direct coinage - in my experience, a lot of Christian names e.g. Bethel tend to be from untranslated named in the Bible.
I notice that the sections on Mikveh/washing and anointing are well done, but probably need inline citations. There is another matter, and I'm not sure it's in the article - rabbis are generally supposed to be married (at least traditionally), and in the LDS, there is an encouragement for people to marry, and I don't think any high ranking member of the LDS has been unmarried for a long time. (In complete contrast to Catholicism)--MacRusgail (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to look for refs for Joseph Smith's live-in Hebrew teacher, but haven't come up with anything. I have read about it in two or three places. It would be worth mentioning because it demonstrates he had an interest in Jewish culture in the original lacking in many Christian denominations.--MacRusgail (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Furthermore, he and others had studied Hebrew in Kirtland, Ohio, with Professor Joshua Seixas for two hours a day from January 26 through March 26, 1836." lds.org (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A further point, while Jews have had certain ethnic features to their culture, it has also been asserted that there is a Mormon nation, or that Mormons (of the Deseret region) have had quasi-ethnic features.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on where this has been asserted? The State of Deseret did have national undertones, but that was a direct result of a desire to have a place where Latter-day Saints would be safe from the persecutions they experienced everywhere they resided in the formal states of the USA. To my understanding there was not a claim to ethnicity, but a claim of a union of beliefs.
The House of Israel or the covenant people of God was also a claim of belief and not a claim of ethnic origins. One belonged either by adoption into the House of Israel or by actual heritage. --StormRider 19:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re first paragraph, I appreciate the reasons for the move (especially the persecution that they had to put up with), but I have heard of people claiming to be cultural/ethnic Mormons, in much the same way that there are people who are cultural/ethnic Jews... i.e. they don't follow the religion, but are proud of their Mormon family heritage, and maybe have certain traits coming out of that. I think that Judaism approaches an ethnic group more than Mormonism (which is only slightly that way, and then only in the "Deseret Region"). Jews in various areas had distinct languages, and surnames (although there are arguments both ways), whereas it's much harder to make a case for that with Mormons. Jack Mormon and Humanistic Judaism, not to mention secular Zionism. In the case of the State of Israel, there is no requirement for a "Jew" to be a believer, they just have to have one Jewish grandparent.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC) p.s. I'm using Deseret as shorthand for the areas in Utah, and surrounding states with substantial LDS populations.[reply]
Okay, now I understand your point. A Jack Mormon is someone who does not "live" the religion or follow its doctrines, but is a member. I think it is tougher to assess they are cultural Mormons. LDS culture is often based upon a few beliefs in particular: Word of Wisdom, church attendance, family togetherness (including temple marriages, family home evening, etc.), and going on missions. Typically, a Jack Mormon does not follow the Word of Wisdom, does not attend church, may or may not do the family togetherness things, and may or may not have gone one a mission.
LDS do not have distinct languages, surnames are common throughout society and are not distinct, etc. I suppose that you could state in the article that the Jewish people have maintained a more distinct identity in world history than LDS when you have a reputable reference that supports the claim when compared to LDS. But, as you have stated, this is a tough allegation to support. --StormRider 21:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'm going to try and attempt to put these in a table at some stage... also I feel if the figures are equivalent to each other as much as possible, that would be helpful.--MacRusgail (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Brigham Young University had a symposium in 1978 and invited only non_LDS scholars. The school published a book about it, and it is also here on internet. There are some interesting thing there.

Professor Emeritus W. D. Davies, a famous scholar in theology (and not a member in LDS) said: Mormonism is the Jewish-Christian tradition in an American key. He explained in "Israel, the Mormons and the Land" http://rsc.byu.edu/pubWDaviesIsraelMormonsLand.php

Professor W. D. Davies and Krister Stendahl were two of the famous scholars that was on the symposium. Stendahl was active in jewish-christian dialogue, and was a very good friend with LDS Church. The temple in Stockholm had very much opposition from almost every swede, and with his support and help it was possible to build it. The opposition became less. He saw the LDS Church as jewish-christian.

Reflections on Mormonism : Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center Symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/rsc&CISOPTR=36013 (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Plurality" Section[edit]

While I enjoyed this article and am glad that it exists, I think the "Plurality" section is actually an illustration of how Judaism and Mormonism differ, not how they are similar. While Hasidic, Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, and Humanistic Jews likely all consider themselves "Jewish," the different denominations within the Latter Day Saint Movement, while sharing a common origin, are different and separate religions. (I as a member of the LDS Church, would not attend services at a Community of Christ meetinghouse.) As written, this paragraph and the "Mormon" section of the Demographics paragraph that follows it seem to imply that they are parts of one larger church, which they are not. As such, I suggest that this paragraph be removed. (I have further issues with the terminology used in the paragraph, but will hold off voicing them unless there are objections to the above edit.) Thanks much! Kingsfold (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Demographics" Section[edit]

The numbers contained in the "Mormon" part of this section seem to be taken directly from LDS membership statistics, where the paragraph directly includes all followers of the Latter Day Saint Movement as "Mormons." A note should probably be added clarifying that the numbers reflect the size of the "Salt Lake" denomination only. Thanks much! Kingsfold (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Priesthood and Clergy" Section[edit]

The paragraph stating that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints constitutes about 97% of the total adherents in the Mormon faith is inaccurate. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Mormon faith - all other denominations stemming from the original Church as founded by Joseph Smith may be part of the Mormon tradition, but are not part of the Mormon faith and should not be designated as Mormons. This statement has been removed.ccdesan (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of Israel and Utah[edit]

I read a National Geographic printed sometime before 1990 that mentioned how the geographies of Israel and Utah (long associated with Mormons) have some similarities. This is a much lighter issue than theology and may not be a valid component of this article. Unfortunately, I don't remember the issue of NatGeo. The Great Salt Lake was compared to the Dead Sea. Both lands have a Jordan River and Utah Lake was compared to Yom Chinnereth/The Sea of Galilee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went to Jordan High School, in Sandy, Utah (15 miles south of Salt Lake City). Another similarity is the cedar tree; in Utah, they are actually juniper trees, but because of early Mormons noticing the similarities, they named Cedar City, Utah, after the Lebanon cedar trees. In and around Cedar City, there are more juniper trees than there are tumbleweeds and cactus plants combined. . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So yes, the Jordan River (in Utah) connects the large and dead Great Salt Lake on the north, to Utah Lake on the south — which looked, to the early Mormon pioneers, to be like the Sea of Galilee, on the north, flowing into the Dead Sea, on the south, via the Jordan River. Quite similar, except up-side-down in Utah, whatever that might mean to the Creator. FYI. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective, unreliable entry, most likely written to support a political candidate.[edit]

The entry known as "Mormonism and Judaism" is based almost entirely on heresay and opinion. It references a current Mormon political candidate in a biased manner, its overall theme is skewed toward the promotion of Mormonism, its sources are unverifiable, and its thesis may be interpreted as insulting to readers of the Jewish faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Kolacek (talkcontribs) 23:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While far from a complete and polished article, it's definitely an improvement over the last 8 years of edits. If you have specific criticisms, feel free to voice them or be bold and edit them (with sources, of course). I believe the biggest problem with the article is that no one has taken time to clean up and improve the read-flow. ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 03:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs to link to Joseph Ginat. He was described at the "most influential Jewish man in Latter-day Saint history."

Your point in para. one makes NO sense to practicing mormons or members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Where is the bias and offense to Jewish folks?? The article is inaccurate in many ways.. not at ALL flattering to students of "Mormon doctrine" and other Christian traditions including Luther/ Lutheran doctrine.

What political opinion or Candidate are you talking about??? There's none mentioned clearly in your response, nor in the basis and first 10 pages of this article??!!! Organist00 (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organist, you've got everything turned on its head. It is irrelevant whether Erik Kolacek's points make no sense to Mormons; this is imho pretty evidently a Mormon-conceived and -controlled article (or actually, my respectful opinion is that it narrowly represents the views of a dedicated minority even of Mormons–a few of whom are attempting, with innocent enough intentions I am sure, to exercise ownership over it), so Mormons are the last group of people whose opinion you should be invoking to show there is nothing wrong with it (unless, of course, you want to rename the article to something like "Mormon views of Judaism" or "Mormonism's view of its relation to Judaism"). The people who need to evaluate the sensibility of EK's assertions w.r.t. this article are virtually everybody else. Let these editors take a survey, for starters, of self- or mutually-identifying Jewish wikipedians who are the active editors of articles pertaining to Judaism, and see if EK's claims, or for that matter those of this article, make sense to them, or to any significant sample of editors except a like-minded group of its current authors' fellow Mormons; and if they ask with a sincere heart, with real intent of finding out whether this article is considered–by Jewish editors in particular, or by wikipedians in general–to meet Wikipedia standards in any way, shape or form, in my opinion these folks should be prepared to accept significant, perhaps even radical, changes to it.
No sarcasm or meanness or anti-Mormon sentiment intended here, although obviously my opinion is strong: This just doesn't have the attributes of a well-formed Wikipedia article. If the active editors who are standing by this article in its present form seek genuine feedback in an honest and balanced manner, they're going to get an ear- or eyeful of it, because as of now imho, this article represents much more of a "personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts".--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D&C 13:1[edit]

Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

Editor2020, Talk 17:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

great article.. but could use more "evidence" or citations if you're not yet an expert on mormon or jewish doctrine and practice.[edit]

great article.. but could use more "evidence" or citations if you're not yet an expert on mormon or jewish doctrine and practice. Where in the "mormon bible" or accepted "king james bible" do l.d.s. or mormons claim that "rescuing the spirits of the wicked from hell ". Since when did any LDS or Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) teach of only two kingdoms or destinations??? Don't they keep/ preech their doctrine that the afterlife has many tiers or kingdom's -- as King James bible remind all that my Father's house has "many mansions"?? Your citation is non-existant here... Maybe this article needs serious research or revision. Organist00 (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC) 4 6 16[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Judaism and Mormonism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judaism and Mormonism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]